It appears a lot of the uproar was over: (a) rejection of evidence that suggested the Judge had created a path on the land AFTER filing the lawsuit to bolster his claim to the land; (b) the fact the judge giving the ruling had once served as a judge in the same district as the Judge who won; and (c) pretty convincing the evidence that the Judge knew the land wasn't his, knew the law, used the land for the requisite period of time, and used the law to his advantage (all of which isn't illegal, but certainly makes him a bad guy in my eyes).
People were incensed that adverse possession could exist in this day and time, particularly when a powerful former mayor of Boulder appeared to knowingly take advantage of a young, non-lawyer couple. There's some evidence they had been warned about the Judge's use and simply decided to be "good neighbors", letting the Judge use the land to access his backyard, etc.
As a result of the uproar over the decision, I read that Colorado amended its adverse possession laws. They now appear to require color of title and payment of taxes. I'm guessing that's new. In addition, the case was appealed and rather than risk the appeal the Judge settled for a strip of land at the back of the property, ranging from 5' to 9' wide, instead of the 34% of the property originally awarded to him.
Very concise and to the point.
Thank you.
I remember the uproar and a good portion of it was based, indeed, on the fact the it was a former judge and within his own (fomer) district.
Really, there was nothing redeeming about the judge’s behavior or the law that was applied (abused, misused?).
Glad to see that it was resolved, but still hate to see any interloper awarded any booty.
I’m glad my memory was not faulty on this one.
I’m beginning to forget such things.